Fascism

[Coyote]

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

 

[kaz]

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

Hitler said he was a socialist, but he hated socialism? Where do you get this crap?

I provided sources.

North Korea says it's a "Democratic" Republic. Is it?

And as I said, socialism is CENTRAL ECONOMIC PLANNING. As I've repeatedly said, fascism is where industry is technically in private hands, but all business decisions must follow government economic objectives and all major decisions must be approved by government.

And that is why it is fascism NOT socialism. Socialism is anti-private ownership. That is a KEY tenet. Not just government control, but private ownership.

There is a car in your neighbor's driveway. It has a title in your name. The keys are in your neighbor's house and you can only drive the car where your neighbor directs you to drive it, like getting their groceries and picking up their kids from school.

Who's car is it ... really ???

Bad analogy.

It's about the degree of government regulation/control. For example: You have a car, you own the car, but you can't drive it without a valid license. Fascism takes that control further but doesn't own it.

You're a servant to your neighbor, the car is theirs. That is fascism. The only difference between that and socialism is that the title is in your neighbor's name. You're still a servant. That difference is irrelevant.

Fascism = socialism. Hitler knew that, you don't. Those damned government schools ...

The difference is VERY relevent - private ownership of property and industry vs. no private ownership. You also are completely excluding the other defining characteristics of fascism and socialism - they aren't only economic systems.

- I didn't just say Hitler said he was socialist, I explained why. So your North Korea argument is irrelevant

- You don't know what you are talking about. Full socialism is full government ownership of industry. You're just making it up.

- The car analogy is exactly fascism, you just don't understand fascism

- And yes, fascism and socialism are economic systems. What happened after WWII is the word was changed based on what fascists did.

Hitler tried to kill the Jews (true), Hitler was a fascist (true), therefore fascists want to kill Jews (false). Hitler did that and he was a fascist, but it wasn't being a fascist when he did it

 

[westwall]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Regulations overwhelmingly favor huge multinational corporations. In fact, those big corporations buy the politician they need to pass the legislation they want to put the small corporation out of business so that the big corp. is all that's left. Walmart is the most obvious example of how a big corp uses government regs to destroy the small guy.

 

[bripat9643]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

The free market does not "support" big business. You can't look at any set of rules without assuming it is intended to benefit one chosen group or another. Your claim is like saying that the First Amendment supports racism. However, I cringe in using that analogy because I know you believe it actually does. That's why it's impossible to argue with leftists. They are immune to logic.

 

[Contumacious]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Regulations overwhelmingly favor huge multinational corporations. In fact, those big corporations buy the politician they need to pass the legislation they want to put the small corporation out of business so that the big corp. is all that's left. Walmart is the most obvious example of how a big corp uses government regs to destroy the small guy.

Yep.

Some dishonest businesses thrive when the government gives them coercive monopoly powers.

But Standard Oil of New Jersey provided gas and kerosene at reasonable prices even though it had cornered 85% of the market .

.

 

[owebo]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Wrong. You are bucking the odds of eventually getting something correct. Big business does very well under oppressive left wing control. Go learn some history. The right here has ALWAYS favored the free market. Big business can accommodate government regulation and laws. They can afford a team of lawyers. Small business can't.

I don't think that is right either.

Big business does well under both systems.

The right constantly states the virtues of free market competition but free market competition eventually results in huge monopolies that effectively lock out the small business' and reduce competition.

Likewise, operating under burdonsome regulations favors big business' becuase, like you say they can afford lawyers and afford to accommodate the regulations that small business' can't. But they also do better because they have the money to effectively lobby congress for regulations that favor THEM rather than small competitors. A good example is the farm industry.

Capitalism doesn't exist under fascism...so....

Your use of big is an irrelevant liberal talking point associated with some type of emotional argument, so it's ignored.....

Capitalism can exist under fascism -

DEMOCRATIC People's REPUBLIC of North Korea

German DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

People's REPUBLIC of China

So, according to you, North Korea, East Germany and China are Democratic and Republics. Interesting, but disagreed. Yeah, same goes for the fucking Nazis.

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

Which doesn't occur in fascism.

Capitalism cannot and does not exist under fascism...PERIOD....

 

[bripat9643]

I always have to laugh when they drag out the "national socialism" - and think about NK.

The Nazi's STARTED as a socialist party, but Hitler was nothing if not pragmatic and socialism was rapidly abandoned.

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

Wrong. That's just another leftwing myth.

"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."

- Adolph Hitler -
​

Does that sound like a guy who hates communists?

 

[westwall]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

 

[Divine Wind]

I am familiar with the appeal to authority fallacy; the author of the 14-points has a Doctorate in Political Science, which obviates your implied criticism of my point as a logical fallacy....

Actually, your vesting so much value in Britt having a "Doctorate of Political Science" proves my point since there is zero evidence he has a doctorate. If you have such evidence, please provide it.

The closest thing I can find is this:
Fascism? No One? A Response to "Dr." Laurence Britt
A search of the internet reveals no “Doctor Laurence Britt, political scholar,” nor can any of his works be found aside from the 14 Warning Signs themselves. Does this man exist? As it turns out, yes and no. There is no “Dr. Laurence Britt, political scientist” and there never was. There is only Laurence Britt, former executive and author of a single book, who wrote the 14 Signs. Far from being anything resembling an expert on politics, much less Fascism specifically, Britt is a former corporate executive who worked for such corporations as Allied Chemical, Mobil and Xerox Corp and studied business at Northwestern University. Armed with this information, I was able to even find a comment made by Mr Britt himself on a blog regarding his original article and the case of mistaken identity:

“For your information I never made a claim that I was a “Dr.” Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the article. I am a retired businessman with a life long interest in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I’ve contributed chapters to three books, written another and am working on a second. I’ve written approximately 25 magazine and newspaper articles on political and economic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interest in the subject. My novel, “June, 2004″ was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.”​

 

[owebo]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

 

[Coyote]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

 

[owebo]

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Actually it is. It is merely a softer form of it. The Nazi's realized that they needed the people to conform so they initiated a soft form of class destruction. The Soviets, under Stalin simply murdered 60 million people to get what they wanted in a hurry. Germany only had 65 million people so that tactic wouldn't work! However, when you read about the policies that the Germans were instituting, the Reich Arbeits Dienst, the SA, the HJ, the BDM, ALL of them had one thing in common, the State was the ultimate authority. In fact the medal below was given to German mothers for having children. Why? Because the children didn't belong to the mother, they belonged to the State, and the more children you bore for the State, the better the medal you got. up to two kids got you a Bronze medal, up to 5 got you a Silver medal and if you had 6 or more you got a Gold medal.

Under the Nazi's the goal was to have two classes of people. Members of the Nazi Party (less than 10% of the total population at its height of membership) and everyone else. The same as happened in the Soviet Union.

Communism controls the people through ownership of industry...

Fascism controls industry through ownership of the people....

Your post is spot on and it is really that simple, and it drives the fascist left nuts....

 

[Contumacious]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party —

The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.

What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."

.

 

[bripat9643]

What the fuck? You think Nazi Germany wasn't a centrally planned economy?



You just can't see through the fog of Democrat programming. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen you say, and there's some pretty stiff competition for that title

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

No shit....that's not even open for debate....

Fascism depends on socialism to control the people of industry (owners and workers)....without socialism, fascism can't exist....

And that my friend, is left wing....

Fascism controls the people through authoritarianism and nationalism. Not socialism.

Whatever type of socialism works....fascism will use....

Socialism is the elimination of classes, collective ownership of all property and means of production. Fascism is not. It's an authoritarian rightwing ideology that utilizes some aspects of socialism. That doesn't make it "socialist".

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are political propaganda. In fact, the term "class" is nothing but propaganda.

Fascism is government control of the economy. It is socialism, in other words.

 

[owebo]

The Nazi's allowed private ownership of property and of industry. The state set rules and goals on production - but did not own the means of production nor did the people own the means of production. You can logically argue it was a hybrid of socialism and capitalism and Naziism in entirety was a mongrel ideology. Turning Hitler into a leftwing socialist is (not surprisingly) a modern attempt at rewriting history.

Debunking the claim that Hitler was socialist

The Myth: Adolf Hitler, starter of World War 2 in Europe and driving force behind the Holocaust, was a socialist.

The Truth: Hitler hated socialism and communism and worked to destroy these ideologies. Nazism, confused as it was, was based on race, and fundamentally different from class focused socialism.

Hitler as Conservative Weapon
Twenty-first century commentators like to attack left leaning policies by calling them socialist, and occasionally follow this up by explaining how Hitler, the mass murdering dictator around whom the twentieth century pivoted, was a socialist himself. There’s no way anyone can, or ever should, defend Hitler, and so things like health-care reform are equated with something terrible, a Nazi regime which sought to conquer an empire and commit several genocides. The problem is, this is a distortion of history.

Hitler as the Scourge of Socialism
Richard Evans, in his magisterial three volume history of Nazi Germany, is quite clear on whether Hitler was a socialist: “…it would be wrong to see Nazism as a form of, or an outgrowth of, socialism.” (The Coming of the Third Reich, Evans, p.
173). Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself, nor a communist, but he actually hated these ideologies and did his utmost to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia, in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living ‘ room for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’. More on the early Nazis.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism, confused as it was, was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was entirely different: built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan-German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.


...Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power and often later executed, such as Gregor Strasser. There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefitted and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps. More on the Nazi rise to power and creation of the dictatorship.​

The key parts of socialism are elimination of the class structure, collective and/or social ownership of all property and of the means of production. In terms of economy, the broad objectives of socialism are "to increase the material and cultural standards of the people, to attain full employment and 'to achieve economic equality." Typically a redistribution of wealth or land to achieve that. Most of that is not a component of Hitler's ideology - and stating state control (not ownership) over the economy, alone, does not make it socialism.

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

The four square model is propaganda, meant for consumption by the weak minded....

 

[Coyote]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

 

[Coyote]

More communist blather.

Socialism is government control of the economy. Any other definitions are propaganda, not economics. Fascism is government control of the economy. Fascism is a form of socialism. That's the bottom line.

You keep saying fascism respected private property, which is an absolute lie. You don't respect private property when you abolish all the rights of property ownership.

You can quote all the leftwing gasbags you want, but all that proves is how much the left is invested in lying about the true nature of fascism.

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

The four square model is propaganda, meant for consumption by the weak minded....

Why would you say that? It seems more accurate than simple right-left which doesn't account for numerous ideologies that have attributes of both.

 

[bripat9643]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

In Coyote's universe, a law against theft prevents people from stealing from the rich. That means laws against stealing support the rich. That's how the leftist mind works.

 

[bripat9643]

So, using hitler as the example, you're saying he ran a small government to achieve his fascist state?

No, but RW hasn't always meant simply smaller government since RWers traditionally support big business and national defense. National defense requires a federal government to coordinate. The Federal government is also responsible for foreign treaties, which affect foreign trade. So to claim RWers are against "big government" isn't totally true.

What Hitler did was consolidate power, which means he consolidated government into a smaller, more efficient machine while still letting capitalist corporations have some latitude.

Total bullshit. Hitler did not make the German government smaller. He vastly expanded it. He took away all the latitude for capitalists. Your theories are based on total fantasies about what actually occurred.

Also, right wingers do not "support big business." That's a deliberate distortion of what they support. What they support is preventing government from interfering with business, whatever its size. What they especially oppose is government playing favorites with business, which is what douche bag left wingers endorse.

The hell you say

They support the free market which supports big business. Unless you want to regulate it (there's a dirty word) - in order to protect small business (that's a leftwing tactic) - you de facto support big buisness. Get real here and stop moving goal posts.

Capitalism supports big business, small business, and medium business...what's your point?

Sort of. It "supports" through non-interference/non-regulatory. So it's neutral and success is dependent on the market. However, the de-facto result is that big business' eventually become powerful enough to stifle competition (start ups, small business). It's very Darwinian.

In other words, it doesn't support jack. "Neutral" means it doesn't support. Big business is never able to stifle competition without government help. That's why big business loves government regulation.

 

[owebo]

The truth is the mass murder of he nazis was revealed to the public....when they liberated the death camps....the mass murder of the communists has always been hidden within their borders......and the left needs to separate the out in the open mass murder of the national socialists in Germany from the far deadlier mass murder of the international socialists to protect their own version of socialism....otherwise it would be known that socialism in all it's forms murdered close to 100 million people around the world.....in the modern age.....and the left has to hide that truth to protect it's grab for power....

WTF are you talking about - you aren't even making sense. Is this yet another rightwing attempt to rewrite history?

Hitler abhored socialists and communists, and killed them. Once he got into power, he eliminated the socialism and socialists from his party. Communists were sent to the concentration camps. It's amazing how you folks like to revise your history while simultaneously accusing the left of doing so. You own the fascists. Deal with it.

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

The four square model is propaganda, meant for consumption by the weak minded....

Why would you say that? It seems more accurate than simple right-left which doesn't account for numerous ideologies that have attributes of both.

"It seems" was the point of my post....

"It is" is the point of this discussion....that's why your propaganda you consume fails here with intelligent discussion....

Resist your indoctrination.....